Just posted: Canon EOS 100D / Rebel SL1 Review

We just posted our Canon EOS 100D / Rebel SL1 review. Canon's smallest SLR to date was built to take on mirrorless cameras while maintaining the optical viewfinder and compatibility with the company's existing suite of lenses. We put it through its paces in a busy family environment to see how well it held up in the type of setting its most likely to encounter. Click through for our review.

Comments

I have had 2 SL1 cameras in the past year and both have failed. The first may have been from some sweat while riding my bike - however, it's replacement, a refurb from Canon lasted only 2 months. It, too, they claimed was damaged by liquid. The camera was used in normal conditions and stored in normal conditions. Clearly there is some major defect in the manufacture/engineering of this camera to lead to such rapid failures. Have others experienced similar issues?

No doubts great product! But another small camera with a set of huge lenses, another smaller DSLR? But Canon already made a great Premium compact, perfect to its purpose the G1X. Why don't you improve that?

Just ordered one... this little guy will make a great 2nd body to have as a back up in the kit bag alongside the 5Dmarkiii. It takes all my prime lenses, it's super light, takes up little space, shoots reasonable enough quality in the event I ever need to use it on a job and it may in fact be give me more creative control with video focus options for shooting videos created for online. At this price it's got a lot going for it. I thought to wait until the 70D, but at half the price and only really buying it as an insurance policy in the unlikely event my 1st body dies.... a no brainer indeed. ( got the 40mm also as it seems like they might just hang out and be good friends!)

I have a 5d3 and just got the SL1. Also have the 40mm. Great combo. You wont be disappointed. SL1 makes the 5d3 look like a monster. I'm going to skip the 70d and wait for the 7d2. That will be an awesome trio of bodies.

Other than its size, there's not a lot of difference between it and some other Canon models. I guess it's nice to some that it's a little smaller, but if it won't fit in your pocket, what's the dif? Having a slightly bigger camera hanging on a strap is no big deal to me.

It's nice of Canon to try to make the body smaller. Now more pancake lenses, please. And it's a good moment of time too: m43's Oly&Panny stopped releasing new pancakes and do not update the older ones.

peevee1 - you may not be aware of this, but Canon's primes also fit on other Canon bodies, not just Rebels. So if Canon made more pancake or compact primes, it wouldn't just be for Rebels. As for "buyers of Rebels don't buy primes", I think it's a fairly safe bet that there will be a lot of SL1 buyers who will be getting the 40mm pancake for it. At $200, and with such a small profile, it's a no-brainer.

You're not supposed to use the LCD image as the ultimate gage of image exposure anyway. It's only supposed to give you a general idea. At best, exposure might be "simulated" accurately in a controlled and ideal viewing environment, but all bets are off once you get out into the real world, where ambient lighting can change from moment to moment, place to place, changing the reliability of using the LCD image as a gage of exposure.

If you want a reliable gage of exposure, use the histogram on the LCD, not just the image preview. That's what the histogram is designed for.

Besides, no LCD screen is truly reliable or accurate unless you calibrate it (in addition to viewing it under optimal ambient lighting). I've yet to see any solution for calibrating the rear LCD of a camera.

@ Axel Vercauteren - why should the reliability of the histogram on the 100D be any different from any other Canon DSLR? Frankly, I've *never* heard of anyone questioning the reliability of one camera model's histogram versus another's. A histogram is simply a graphical representation of the pixels exposed in your image, and is not dependent on, or biased by, the quality of the LCD on which it is shown, nor is it effected by the ambient lighting conditions under which it is viewed, nor does it need to be calibrated for accuracy. It's basically an unbiased sensor readout of all your pixels, plotted in the form of peaks and valleys on a graph, showing you the exposed pixel distribution on a graph, and one camera's histogram isn't going to be any more accurate than another camera's. I suggest you should maybe educate yourself on what a histogram is and how to use it.

The only weakness of any camera's historgram is that it is based on the JPEG file. Whether you're shooting in RAW or JPEG exclusively, the image on the LCD is a JPEG and the histogram is a direct reflection of that processing. I would be fascinated to see a camera with the option of displaying the histogram of the RAW data. If one is going to accurately expose their picture to the right of the histogram in order to take maximum advantage of all the available levels, then a RAW histogram would be very useful.

I checked this camera today at my local Saturn store which has the good idea to display one long row of about 25 DSLR for people to try ( I'm not paid for writing this ). It was standing besides the Pentax K30 , Nikon 3200 , Nikon 7000 and Canon 60D. First impression , holding the little camera is a real pleasure ( and I have long hands ). Like it was waiting for me. Second the controls are easy and seem to make sense. Menu is simple and user-friendly. Dedicated iso button for me who like to set that manually. But the big test was the viewfinder and there was the good surprise : large and bright enough, brighter than the Nikon 3200's. Smaller than the K30's and 7000's for sure, but way enough for me, and certainly an upgrade over my Oly E620. Took a shot at 50 mm of the store across the hallway and the 5 seconds the photo was displayed on screen ( no card in camera ) were enough to tell me that I could easily live with Canon colors and jpeg treatment.

Glad you have found a camera that you enjoy using. Never mind what others think of it. As long as it suits your requirement and you are comfortable with it, it is yours.

You can't go wrong with Canon. It has the widest range of lens available. The thing about DSLR cameras is you are buying into a system. Once you have made your choice, it is not easy to change unless you want to buy a different set of lenses again.

Lenses are very hard to shrink. Electronics are easy to miniaturize over time, but optics have to take in light without screwing it up......optics have been around for a few more centuries than semiconducting computer chips, so good luck with that wish.

The EF-S lens line is specifically designed to produce an image circle for APS-C crop sensors. There are quite a few covering a large range and many have exceptionally good image quality. The Panasonic 14-42 powered zoom lens isn't a great lens. It's small and compares well with other small lenses but it requires serious distortion correction that can seriously affect the corners, other small lenses like the G1 X still beat it, it has a limited zoom...it's a compromise, in other words, and moreso than other lenses. Most small Pentax lenses are primes. Their zooms aren't small by any means. Their 18-55 is 67.5mm long and weighs 220 grams compared to the Canon 18-55 EF-S at 75.2mm long and weighing 205 grams. Please explain how that is significantly smaller. And the EF line may be bigger, but considering the size of lenses available for every APS-C body on the planet, they aren't considerably larger. I mean, you're not going from a pocket camera to one you have to carry in a backpack.

As long as it is a DSLR camera, it has to be fairly big, especially if it is a zoom. The smallest one can have is to use prime lens, like me.

Most DSLR lenses are made for full frame. It has to be big to cover the image circle. Even the new Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 APS-C lens weigh about 800gsm. It also depend on the aperture size. The Sigma is a good example.

Micro 4/3 lenses are small because the image circle is much smaller.

The only full frame camera which has small lenses is Leica and that's because it is a rangefinder camera and not a DSLR. Further, most of the lenses are prime. However, if you are a novice, you would not want to have a second look at Leica.

Stick to micro 4/3 if you want small lenses. DSLR cameras are in a different class. It will be even bigger if you are going medium format.

The same thing is true for mirrorless. The blobs are still smaller, but certainly not pocket-able, unless you have giant pockets. Canikon cannot or will not make small lenses, except for the 40mm from Canon. I wish they'd just copy Pentax in that department.

I probably should cut and paste this by now. The first time I saw a Sony mirrorless camera my instant reaction was "I see the lens and it looks huge...but where is the camera? Is it the little flat thing behind the lens?"

have you seen NEX-6 with its kit 16-50? It is MUCH smaller, not even funny, and starts from very useful 24mm equivalent, not this inadequate 29mm.

Its tele though, 55-210, is big and slow. To get small good teles, you have to go m43 so far. Even constant f/2.8 70-200 equivalent is decently sized and light, and kit Oly 40-150 and Pana 45-150 are featherweights.

When I started photography during the film days. I joint some photography club. They always compare the prints from different cameras. How the colour from that camera produced. Not so much on how well the pictures were captured. Some of them bough expensive camera just for collection. Not using for real shooting. DSLR is mainly for moment captured. Better AF and low light quality is most importance. I hope one day AF on mirror-less can match with DSLR, if not still have to bear with the weight. Canon is helping to reduce the weight and size and will benefit those DSLR user who wanted to be free and easy sometimes.

How come there's no mention of the d3200 in the review? I don't see the value of this higher priced Canon besides the better Video AF? What I find impressive from Canon though is the 40mm lens which is high IQ despite the pancake size.

There are just too many people who are concern over whether a particular camera gets a gold award or a silver award. The review and conclusion is just more information about the camera. Different users will place importance on different aspect of a camera. Ultimately, if you think that a particular camera suits your requirement and budget, buy it and if doesn't buy another.

In reality, these Gold/Silver/Bronze awards are only worth as much as the paper they are printed on. And on the internet, that's no paper at all. It's a pity that anyone should use these "awards" as a consideration at all when picking a camera. Frankly, I'd prefer that these awards were done away with. It's mainly just for lazy people who don't want to read reviews or give any greater or deeper consideration to selecting a camera.

I agree. And since DPR clearly state that the awards are completely subjective, and unrelated to the more objective scoring system, there really is no point in arguing with the choice of award. You can only agree to disagree, if you don't share the reviewer's opinion.

The award is given by the reviewer, if he for some reason, whatever it might be, thinks the camera deserves it. It's his personal feelings about the camera that determines if it gets an award, and if so, if it gets gold or silver. You can't dispute someone's personal feelings; they aren't objective facts.Of course, given this, one might question the value of such an award system for the consumers, but that's different from questioning the specific choices of awards.

"Except for the fact that camera companies themselves are now using the "DPR Gold Award" logo in their advertisements in Pop Photography and on Amazon. So these awards have a direct impact on sales."

Exactly. One nice thing is that this review has done a good job highlighting how useless and irrelevant the gold award is. It's a "I felt like it" award and means nothing unless you know and/or respect the photographer.

It is easy to assail Canon as a system: How it's behind in specs and innovation; how it fumbles with its good intentions.

But once you get hold of one its products you'll find out that it easily grows on you. I also have this feeling with Olympus cameras. Maybe this has something to do with the interface.

This is a subjective observation, for sure. But I am sure I am not alone in this.

The reviewers didn't think highly of the 6D, picturing it a limping runner in the marathon with its contemporaries. Yet it is the best camera I have ever owned. I have a 5Dmk2 and a 7D, gold medalists of sorts in their time.

The same can be said with the 100D. It will be bashed black and blue by those who don't own one and by those who have no intention of owning one. But those who already have it will most likely be very happy taking pictures and video with it.

Anything written on the internet needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Especially comments bashing products. There are waaay too many haters on the web, all too willing to crucify a product. As the saying goes, opinions are like armpits: everyone has them, and a lot of them stink.

Wouldn't it be nice if people could just decide for themselves what products to like and buy? Oh, yeah, that *is* how it is! Whew!

Some people here are so funny! They are so obsessed by the sensor and dxomark. Looks like they want to buy the sensor, not the camera. Just remember, sensor is only a part of the whole camera system. There are so many thing to consider when you buy camera, and sensor is only one of them. I am happy that Canon is not into Sensor and megapixel race. Rather, they improved other parts of the camera (touch screen interface, live view and STM lens technology, size, etc). This camera is much improved than the T2i although they shares the same sensor. No camera from Nikon or Sony has so many real and useful features than this camera.

Ultimately, if one is a real photographer, he will be able to shoot excellent photos with any camera. Each camera has its advantage and limitation. One just have to understand it and get the best from it.

Most important, one must improve his skill in photography and learn to see beyond that of a non photographer. The camera, digital or film, is just a tool.

1. No touch screen interface2. No STM lenses and smooth AF in live view. Aperture cannot be changed in live view.3. No exposure bracketing 4. No Auto FP high speed sync5. No DOF preview6. No Mirror lock up option7. No 14-bit RAW8. Bigger9. Crappy software support10. Too much yellow color cast in the pictures

I have not looked at all of the posts, and this point may already have been made, but DxO scores for this camera and the Panasonic G6 sensors are about the same, so how is a larger sensor an advantage, as made a prominent feature as of the review and of the final grade? Sounds like the review rests on a an old stereotype.

Even if IQ were equal, a larger sensor gives more DOF control. A larger sensor allows you to get shallower DOF, better background blur, better subject isolation. So a larger sensor allows greater creative control over your image. This is not an "old stereotype". That's just how it is with smaller sensors vs larger sensors, because smaller sensors with higher multipliers use shorter focal lengths which yield greater DOF.

Like it or not, different sensor sizes do have their advantages and disadvantages. They are not all equal in all respects.

The problem with cameras like the SL1 receiving a Gold Award because of the "suitable for the target entry-level user" argument is that DPR has traditionally been a website for enthusiasts who mostly would like to see the Gold Award reserved for the very best performing cameras. Such a loose definition of criteria for the Gold Award kind of cheapens it. And the third problem is it calls into question the thinking behind truly deserving class leading or revolutionary cameras like the Nikon D7000 and Sony RX100 getting only Silver Awards.

This is a nice camera, and as a DSLR fan I happy it's doing well, but because it uses older sensor technology, I don't feel it's the absolute cream of the crop. The new 70D may be, but the SL1 is essentially a smaller Rebel with an even smaller 95% VF view and more shallow grip.

It's funny how some people are hung up on the "more shallow grip". I think back to the days of using my old Nikon FE2 that definitely had a "more shallow grip"...oh, wait, it didn't have a grip at all! Yeah, there are a lot of classic cameras that had pretty shallow grips, or no grips, and we all got along with them just fine. These days, I actually think that a lot of today's DSLRs have overly large and overly thick grips! I think a lot of cameras have gone overboard in terms of grip and body thickness. So I see something like an SL1 as bucking that trend, going back to slimmer, more compact, less bloated SLR bodies.

@justmeMN The point is that DPR then has to be consistent and review all cameras in terms of their intended market. When they reviewed the Nikon V1/J1, which Nikon stated up front was for "P&S upgraders", DPR panned it for not having a tradition PASM mode dial.

@T3 A deeper grip is essential for larger, heavier lenses because it's less tiring for long shoots, i.e., you can get leverage with your right hand instead of supporting the weight of the lens primarily with your left. An FE2 is such a small, lightweight camera it really didn't require a grip. But using it with large teles, it would not have been particularly comfortable or secure to hold.

The SL1 with say a Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 or 70-200 f/2.8, most of the weight of the rig would be transferred to your left hand because the shallow grip doesn't give you much leverage at all. Someone with larger hands, forget it. Compare a 60D and SL1 and see which is more comfortable to hold.

There is a problem with linking judgements and awards to specific groups of users such as entry-level user (or probably in the case of the SL1 "compact user who wants to move up a stage"). The problem is that the real world isn't like that. These groups only exist as a convenience in the mind of some reviewers.

Take someone who's never used an SLR or DLSR, but has been playing around with compacts for a bit, and decides to see what all this DSLR stuff is about. Why wouldn't they go for say a 600D/T4i? Is there some deep psychological thing going on here which says that newbies will want to go for something smaller?

Don't pigeonhole people. There's a hugh variety of reasons why people buy cameras; different people of similar experience look for different things. Stick to what a camera does, and judge the camera by that; that's the thing which will help people decide what'll do for them. The SL1 is not a Gold award camera.

@NCB - The problem with your argument is that not only are "specific groups of users" simply an artificial construct, but so are these "judgements and awards." So relax. All these guidances are simply general guidelines and assessments. They aren't gospel. People put WAAAY too much importance in these awards and point values. It doesn't matter if a camera is a Gold award camera or a Bronze award camera. What matters is if it's a camera that appeals to you. So your statement "the SL1 is not a Gold award camera" is, to me, as pointless and petty as your issue about pigeonholing people. And there's also a whiff of hypocrisy there, too. In essence, these award labels are pigeonholing cameras! I think they should do away with these awards and point rankings all together.

But if you're going to stick with these awards, you do have to judge cameras based on their target markets and target users, these "specific groups" you object to. Otherwise, you're comparing a SL1 vs a 1DX.

Of course one has to consider the target users. No one would make a buying decision between, say, a Nikon D4 and a D3200, or a Panasonic GH3 and a GF6. Sure, the same person could be interested in both cameras, but not for the same purpose. So there's no point in comparing them directly.

If all cameras were to be judged by the same criteria, then no entry-level system camera or P&S compact would be considered good, since they would fall so far short of the quality and performance of the high-end cameras. But, as many people who have bought these cheaper cameras surely can attest to, they ARE good cameras for their intended target users.

I cannot see a serious reason why mid or top range cams have to be so huge...This kind of cams show the way. If handling is a problem then you should have the ability to buy an add on pack to fit the camera, It would be a seriously lighter solution... I guess that in less of 5 years a full pro configuration cam would have similar size (plus a 10%) and a weight not exceeding the 600 grams.

There is still the delusion that a camera of a particular level of performance has to weigh a certain amount and be of a certain size. It's funny how, in other industries, sports or disciplines, higher performance gear is expected to be lighter and less bulky, and yet when it comes to camera gear people have the opposite expectation. I think that's because there's a certain level of machismo that some people (mainly men) derive from carrying around heavy, bulky camera equipment. It feeds their ego.

1) Build quality: an alloy body is more durable and rugged for use in the field....for years and years and years, in difficult conditions, and with large, heavy lenses attached. High-precision AF, temperature, possible drops, maintaining weather seals, and heavy use require a solid body.2) Comfort: Larger grips and a heavier body help balance out larger lenses. Larger lenses will always be heavy and big because that is required to produce an image circle with great IQ for sensors this size.3) Control layout: Having large buttons spread out over a larger area are easier to use on the fly and elminate a lot of menu navigation that can be time consuming.4) Larger screens: They take up a lot of real estate.5) Higher end guts: The newest stuff with the best performance is larger in order to get a product to market before the miniaturization process has a chance to shrink it. Newer things are bigger for a while, even computer chips.6) Onboard flash, battery size, viewfinder...

In the 70's I had three Nikon bodies and 12 lenses. The cameras had no "grip" at all. The only way to get one was to buy the external camera motors with integrated grip handles. I did, but didn't use them. I support a camera with my left arm balanced under the camera-lens combination point of inertia. My left hand can stay very relaxed. When doing this, I can still have my right hand in my jeans pocket. When shooting, I must use my right hand for triggering and added stability, but I just touch the camera body with very relaxed fingers. The palm of my right hand never come into contact with the camera. This way, no micro-spasms from strained arm/hand muscles will shake the exposure. Grips are for sledge hammers. And yes, I hold my breath too.

Oh! I love this cute chubby adorable "baby". Thanks to Cannon think tank. They removed the mirror but retained the grip. Other wise one has to buy the grip from a 3rd party.As it is from the stable of Canon I will not go for hair splitting criticism but would like to see the baby on few more attractive colors in future.

I wonder how this compares with a Panasonic G6. G6 i understand would have better video, but similar body styles. the m43 lenses would be smaller. THough the G6 sensor is a bit old it's fairly similar to the Canon with its older sensor.

That was my point in a previous comment. The G6 does have better video - includes 60p and without the aliasing/moire that plague DSLR video. Stills IQ is very similar - the CameraLabs review of the G6 did a direct comparison to the 100D a found this. But the G6 offers much more - fully articulating LCD, NFC, wifi - all in a package that is significantly smaller when you count the lens size.

The only reason I could see anyone preferring the 100D over the G6 is if you were heavily invested in Canon lenses. But if this were the case the lenses are so big it defeats the purpose of the 100D's compact body.

2eyesee - from all these that you listed only articulating LCD makes a difference.100d on the other hand got one enormous advantage over G6: HUGE choice of lenses.Oh, wait, there's another one: Larger sensor, meaning more options to control depth of field (especially when matched with trio of f/1.4 primes).

The only reason I could see anyone preferring the G6 over the 100D is if you don't care about photography but rather need video with the lenses that m4/3 got (or play with adapters). But if that were the case you probably would end up better with either more serious and bigger camera (like FS100 on a cheaper end) or m4/3 that's more tailored to the video, like GH series.

"100d on the other hand got one enormous advantage over G6: HUGE choice of lenses."

Actually, first-party EF-S lens selection is tiny compared to m43 lens selection. EF lenses are mostly huge and have wrong focal lengths for APS-C (especially Canon 1.6x APS-C). For example, there are simply no AF WA primes for the format - compare to the excellent small Olympus 12 f/2 (where is EF-S 15 mm f/2?) or tiny and cheap Panasonic 14 f/2.5 pancake (where is EF-S 17mm f/2.5?). Canon EF-S 10-22 covers 16mm equivalent more or less but not as wide or as sharp as Panasonic 7-14 (14mm and 16mm are quite different). There is also no replacement for Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8.

cont...Well, there are some third party lenses filling the voids, for example Sigma 50-150/2.8 OS, but the lens is 4 times the weight of Pana 35-100 and so huge it is unusable on SL1, and as all third-party lenses on Canon and Nikon systems, is not corrected by the camera firmware (unlike on m43, where software corrections are part of the open standard and its parameters are held by lens firmwares, so firmware updates on cameras are not needed to support new lenses).Claims that SL1 wins because its system has $13,000 lenses which m43 does not are just funny, nobody uses such lenses with SL1 anyway.

"By Plastek (7 hours ago)100d on the other hand got one enormous advantage over G6: HUGE choice of lenses."

Exactly how many STM lenses are there? Without the STM AF in video or live view is total garbage putting it again way behind the G6.

"Oh, wait, there's another one: Larger sensor, meaning more options to control depth of field (especially when matched with trio of f/1.4 primes)."

Small DOF is not necessailly a good thing. For example taking picture of my kids running around in the evening I want something fast with a huge DOF. Using a F1.4 lens (I have both the 50 and 30) is frustrating because if you actually use the F1.4 aperature your DOF is about as thick as a piece of paper. Having a fast lens and a bigger DOF would let me have my cake and eat it too. G6 wins again.

So canon is great if you are taking artsy pictures of flowers and want to swim in a dreamy bokeh. For real life the G6 wins...

All Panasonic camera besides the GH2 or GH3 auto exposure only in video mode. In other words, no manual exposure mode when shooting video which severely limits their usefulness for any serious video work. Also 1080p24 is only found on the GH series cameras.

Lenses, I agree that Canon EF (and Nikon F) have many more choices for lenses, more fast primes, and more telephoto lenses. m43 lenses are quite expensive and telephoto zooms are all variable aperture consumer zooms.

marike6: I think you are incorrect on both counts. The CameraLabs review of the G6 states that there is full manual control over video and 24p. Manual video control was one of the big upgrades of the G6 over the G5.

I did say that the 100D had an advantage with lens choices over the G6, but that only reinforces my comment on how pointless it is making a miniaturised DSLR body as the lenses are so much bigger than micro four thirds.

You're correct of course that the larger APS-C sensor will give you better DOF control, but you're missing my point. If you want better DOF control, get a DSLR by all means - but there are much better value options out there than the 100D.

You seem not to have any interest in video, but that was what the new STM kit lens was designed for - better, quieter focusing for video. Unfortunately there is no 60p/50p option, the internal mic is only mono, and of course is comes with all the aliasing/moire that Canon DSLR video is known for. Adding to this the lack of a tilting screen means the 100D won't be considered seriously for video, in spite of Canon's attempts to make it so with the STM lens.

If Canon put 70D's new sensor and processing into this camera it would have the best of both world. DSLR when you need it and fast liveview AF during movie and if you just want to use it like a compact.

The Hybrid AF II is actually quite fast, and with the STM lens is pretty nice.

Compared to the EOS M and my 5Dmk3, doing liveview AF is a dramatic improvement on the SL1.

I haven't had the opportunity to try the 70D yet. I'm hoping to get my hands on a preproduction unit to compare, but from the videos I've seen, it's certainly a nice improvement even over the SL1, but where it sits now, is a major improvement over other contrast detect AF systems on an APS-C sized sensor.

It is a little ironic that the "compact" SX50 is 123mm wide, whereas the "big sensor" SL1 is only 117mm. Maybe this is an indication that Canon is increasingly uncomfortable with the clumsiness of its DSLR cameras when compared with mirrorless cameras.

Not sure what your point is, but the SX50 has an 24-1200 mm. equiv. lens, so your comparison is strange, to say the least. SX 50 really IS compact for its capabilities, while the 100D belongs to a different class of cameras. Put an 1200 mm. equiv. lens on the 100D, then try measure it and see what you get :)

I was comparing the sizes of the bodies only! Of course, a lens for the APS-C format is much larger than the equivalent for a compact camera.To make my pointer clearer, imagine a 50 ton truck with a cabin smaller than the Smart Fortwo. Technically possible, but a little irrational. When Canon squeezed the SL1 body to be narrower than the SX50, maybe they went too far.

OK, now I get it. I agree, I can't see the advantage of shrinking a DSLR body just for the sake of it. They can't do it to the extent mirrorless camera manufacturers do, therefore attaching lenses will quickly negate any such "improvement".

The size doesn't matter much when you really use the camera. But size/weight is absolutely the most important factor when you leave home and stop on your doorstep for some seconds looking at your camera bag and decide not to bring it today. It's really a great relief in carrying four lbs instead of ten.

I really don't get this camera. I mean Pentax shooters have always been enjoying the small form factor DSLR for years, had excellent pancake lenses for years, suddenly Canon just shaved a few mm here and there, marketed it as the world's smallest (not really that small compared to the old K-m, but not taking anything away from Canon) but is lagging behind compared to its current peers yet everyone is ecstatic. What gives? Oh yeah, Pentax is not Canon.

I don't dislike the SL1, but I agree. The Pentax K-30 has specs not found in any entry level camera, i.e., compact size, 100% Pentaprism VF and weather sealing, with K-5 level IQ, and DPR gave it a Silver Award. I would argue that for a DLSR, a 100% VF is much more important than LiveView AF speed or a few millimeters in size. But DPR has different priorities.

Actually, I like the Pentax K-5 IIs quite a lot due to its performance but the problem is the camera is not popular in many places and countries. Thus, the after sales service would not be good. They have a marketing problem.

The choice of lenses are limited. Even Zeiss which used to make some of their new DSLR lenses in K mount have discontinued doing it.

How does the Canon score a Gold Award at 78%, yet the Nikon D5200 scored 79%, but received a Silver Award? Furthermore, all other cameras reviewed within the last year, that scored a 79 or above, all received Gold Awards, except for the Nikon D5200.

I really could care less either way, just trying to understand DVR's scoring/rating system, as its a bit inconsistent.

But why does it matter?Anyways, I think the SL1 got a gold award because it was smaller without introducing too much compromise. The Nikon got a higher score because it brings a feature set that's tough to match for the price, but is otherwise just another iteration of the D5xxx series.Reviewers see a lot of cameras and probably get bored, so they generally are biased towards ones that are interesting in some way, even if they don't offer any photo-related advantage or better value. That's why a camera might get a higher score even though it's more expensive and does less.

I think DPR would argue that the SL1 and D5200 are in different classes so their scores don't translate across class of camera. But I believe one reason that their scores are similar is because DPR doesn't weight IQ nearly enough in the final score. If they did, the D5200, with it's class leading IQ and new 24 mp Toshiba sensor that is now the benchmark APS-C sensor (a full 22 points better on DxOMark sensor ratings, a testing site whose data DPR uses on some reviews and doesn't on others) would have surely earned a substantially higher score.

As far as size, I'm not sure who decided that small size was a "pro" for all classes of cameras, but with DSLRs small size is only an advantage for portability. When cameras are too small, ergonomics and usability suffer especially when you consider that most DSLR lenses are design for more substantial bodies. Canon shrinking the Rebel to compete with some mirrorless cameras for size is a trend that I'm hoping ends with the SL1.

how many with negative comments here have actually tried the camera? At this level spec sheet is far less relevant than other aspects such as compactness, weight, friendliness, without penalizing performance. I only shoot full frame large bodies yet I was impress and enticed by this little one when I tried it at the store. It is a camera that has something new to say instead of the usual boring improved list of specifications already beyond 90% of the users.

DVT80111, nobody pays any writers any money. That is against everything we stand for. You are rude to suggest it.

To answer the original question from cmvsm, scoring and awards are separate. The reviewer awards them based on his or her overall impression of the product, relative to its position in the market. If you read the review, I explain repeatedly why it deserves a gold.

The system used by DP is confusing a lot of people, and understandably in my opinion: giving a percentage and then silver/gold and then saying they don't apply across almost identical categories is a recipe for failure - people obviously want to compare across classes of camera, specifically in the IQ area!

Similarly, any given rating is only valid for the release date, and clearly won't apply 10 years later.

Anybody have a solution? automatic degradation of results depending on latest result..?

"If you read the review, I explain repeatedly why it deserves a gold."

I went through the entire review page by page and the word gold does not appear once.

Perhaps you use a graphic for gold that my search tool is not finding?

I'm also confused as to why this got the gold. It's simply a T2i,T3i,T4i,T5i in a smaller package. More of the same old stuff, no IQ improvements just smaller. The RAW scores reflect this and you are nodding as you read the review, then see the gold and have a "say what?" moment....

It got the gold because I, the human who used it, with past experience reviewing hundreds of other cameras, thought it deserved it. As for how scoring relates to awards, read this: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4416254604/camera-scores-ratings-explained

I believe this market, the one served by this camera, also served by mirrorless cameras, needs the features included in this camera. Read the other reviews to see why they didn't get a gold, I can't rehash them here, and I didn't review them all. As I've said in posts below, the reason it got gold was partly because important features - again, important for this market of mostly consumer, non-enthusiast users - actually worked. Primarily live view and movie mode AF. No, the sensor is not as fabulous numerically as others in terms of dynamic range, yet it still makes great images. For those into stats and pure performance, please beware: this camera will only please you so you can belittle it. For the rest, it makes great pics.

My point about reading the review was not to find the sentence where I say, "this deserves a gold because," but for you to get the gist of the message, which repeatedly mentions its LV AF abilities and overall suitability to its customer. Raw performance is not much of a factor in a consumer camera, since most consumers don't know what it is, and won't benefit from its use. The bonus with this camera for enthusiasts is that it has all the essential photographic controls and raw capture in a small package; one that, even with a pancake lens attached, will fit into the space of most medium-size EF lenses. To reiterate for those who missed it: Awards are not based on numerical scoring, but on perceived value in the category. This camera, though its image quality is essentially the same as the T5i, works noticeably better in ways that users in its target market will appreciate, hence it gets a gold. It is my opinion of the camera.

Quote from Shawn Barnett dpreview staff, "nobody pays any writers any money. That is against everything we stand for. You are rude to suggest it."However when a good review is given by dpreview, that should translate to higher sales of reviewed product through dpr's own GearShop which, well you get what I'm saying.

also, if someone decides to buy a camera because we rate it highly, surely they were in the market for a camera anyway? And if we rated it poorly then surely they'd choose a different one? And if we rated it highly and it was demonstrably poor/flawed do you not think someone would notice, eventually?

I agreed with Shawn here. I was in the market for a family camera. I assessed many other cameras with very high rating from Nikon, Fuji, Sony, and even tried them at the shop. None of those cameras meet my need. Then comes the SL1 with the features that I like, reasonabley lightweight that can carry around, fast performance for taking kid motion, good low light for parties, good live view / video for taking my kid performance. It does not do all those thing best vs others, but it strives a perfect compromise for me. So I did make the purchase and happy with it. Just wish they have 22mm pancake. Maybe we should have a category as Family Dslr cameras, this deserves Gold in that category IMO. Regards

"is deserves a gold because," but for you to get the gist of the message, which repeatedly mentions its LV AF abilities "

But the LV AF abilities are only realized when we buy all new STM lenses? And that selection is limited to 3 lenses at this point?

And even though the AF is improved, and may be useable, according to most reviewers it lags way behind the competition.

So we have a slightly smaller T5i with a slightly less horrible LV AF (if we buy all new lenses) = gold? Still don't get it Shawn and reading these comments, I'm not the only one.

I don't believe the payola stuff, but I've handled the Sl1 (it's not that much smaller than my 350d) so we are all fairly confused as to how such minor improvements (with severe STM restrictions) and practically no IQ improvement and a 5 year old sensor that is way behind the competition ranked a Gold.

The "it's a gold because I liked it" really sort of degrades the whole rating scheme.

Shawn states - "Awards are not based on numerical scoring, but on perceived value in the category." If this is the case, then the reviews need to be consistent across the board, if the scoring is not going to coincide with the overall award. As I stated in my post, any camera rated over the past year by dpreview, that came in at a 79 or under, all received Silver Awards, except for this review of the Canon. So how exactly does that make sense for someone looking to purchase, that holds weight in your reviews? Sure, there is no substitute for holding it and using it, but many don't have that luxury.

If a camera, Nikon, Canon, or otherwise, deserves an award, then so be it. But the measurement to get there must have a baseline of consistency. If the scoring has nothing to do with the overall award, then maybe it needs to be reconsidered, as it is a bit contradictory.

street photography with a 45mm equivalent? mmm. i would do it wider. this sl1 with a sigma 18-35 f1.8 would be a nice present. i won't refuse it :D but for street photos i would also seriously consider a dp merril or a ricoh gr.

Got mine yesterday. Awesome little camera. Looks so cute next to my 5D3. If you have large hands don't be put off. It just takes some time getting comfortable with the size. I had to try a few different ways to hold it before I found a way that worked for me. Love the little thing.

@Heliconius - not everything has to be a giant brick of a camera to be good and fun to use. You seem pretty annoyed that someone thinks the SL1 is an "awesome little camera" just because it happens to be "awesome" even though it's a "little camera". Do you have size issues or insecurities?

I would add another terrific lens for this small camera but only manual focus cosina voigtlander 20mm f3.5 which is 32mm in FF format. Great results in photozone.de and soooo small and light only 200 gr. Of course only if you're interested in street shooting.

Good, thorough review. This is the camera I've wanted for some time to complement my medium size DSLR... Unfortunately when I tried it in person it didn't feel comfortable in my largish hands... I'll give it another try.

Just when you think stodgy Canon has nothing up its sleeve and will just keep offering the same warmed up cameras... SL1 and 70D are genuine improvements - on par with Oly's EM-5, if in different niches.

Could be on the way? as Panasonic and Samsung do. Samsung has conventional "SLR" form with short-mount, APS-C sensor and EVF instead of OVF. There really is no camera like the NX10, NX20-the Nikon FM like digital camera so many had clamored for.

The older 18-55 3.5-5.6 IS uses a micro-USM motor, and the new model has a STM (Stepping Motor) for better AF in LiveView and video mode. It's likely that the new lens is slightly larger due to the new STM motor.

Anyway, the lens is extremely lightweight (7 oz or 200 gr) so it balances well on the 100D / SL1 while seeming a bit more solid than the old version.

@marike6: I appreciate what you are saying, but if you compare the STM to the new Panasonic 14-42mm II lens (not the PZ) the Panasonic is around half the weight and volume of Canon's lens.

If you're looking for a fully featured camera in a compact size, I can't see any reason to prefer the Canon 100D over the much more fully featured Panasonic G6, for example. Advantages of the G6 include WiFi, NFC, 60p video (100D is only 30p), internal mic is stereo (100D only mono!), fully articulating screen. The G6 is also significantly lighter - not by much in the body but once you add the kit lens it's significant.

Performance wise with the Canon you get better: DOF control, AF Tracking, high ISO performance. For video, the SL1 has full-manual exposure control while all Panasonic's below the GH series are auto exposure in video mode. There is also no 24p on the G6.

I have a GH2 so I don't dislike the Panasonic bodies, but for IQ, most APS-C DSLRs beat it easily. And lenses for EF or F mount are generally less expensive with more choices in fast primes, f/2.8 zooms and telephotos. Pro grade L lenses (and the Nikon equivalents) are a huge step up from anything available in m43.

I have both a full frame Canon DSLR and a micro 4/3 camera (GF1). I use both for differrent type of photography and situation.

Micro 4/3 has its strength and also its limitations. Its difficult to compare both and choose one over the other. The micro 4/3 prime lenses are good but not cheap. Examples are the 75mm f/1.8, 45mm f/1.8, 60mm f/2.8 macro, 12mm f/2.0 and the 20mm f/1.7. However, the standard zooms are not that good except for the 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 (now not so easy to buy). The 7-14mm f/4.0 is excellent but very expensive.

The 100D is an excellent cheap backup for a 5DMkIII user (of course the 70D might be better as it share the same battery). One can use all the same lenses and accessories. The 100D has better tracking focus compared to the Lumix G6.

One still find it difficult to use a micro 4/3 for event photography although Panasonic is trying hard. But it will make a good travel camera.

The IQ of the G6 holds up very well to the Canon 18MP sensor. The CameraLabs review of the G6 did a direct comparison with the 100D and found there was very little in it. DXO results confirm this - 63 for the 100D vs 61 for the G6.

Also, the G6 does have full manual control over video - it was one of the big upgrades from the G5. and although DPR don't seem to list it, from what I can make out from other website the G6 does support 24p video. The G6 is a much better option for video too as it doesn't exhibit the aliasing and moire that are typical of DSLR's.

The CameraSize link you provided doesn't show a significant size difference from the front, but from the top the difference in bulk is significant - and once you start adding lenses even more so.

If Canon's answer to micro four thirds is to offer a miniaturised DSLR then I don't think it's the right approach, as a camera like the G6 offers so much more.

Bought this camera and am enjoying it with the 40mm pancake. I've been an early adopter of micro 4/3 and love my OM-D with all the nice prime lenses, but honestly what comes out of my SL1 with the 40mm pancake can rival my OM-D with the 17mm (or the 12mm for that matter). I'm no fan of the jack-of-all-trades camera or lens, but this SL1 I can see using as my main camera with a 24mm and the 40mm for most of my everyday photography. If a need a longer lens, I'll get my other Canon cameras because the SL1 is too small and light for a big zoom. Birding with an SL1 is not an option (viewfinder too small, camera too small), and sports with the SL1 is not an option either (grip is too small, can not move+zoom fast and confidently enough). Great walkaround camera, and will give a run for its money to my OM-D; probably I'll use the SL1 for lower light conditions and my OM-D when lighting is good. Very happy to have this camera; another tool in my camera bag!

You are absolutely correct. This small baby is a very good option as a walk-about camera. Always use the right camera for the right job. No camera is perfect.

It is even better if you try it with the 24mm f/1.4 MkII. (A novice will flip if you ask them to buy this lens for 3X the price of the 100D). For a season photographer, one is likely to have this lens or the manual focus Zeiss 25mm f/2.0 lens. Its a very nice combo. Works and balance perfectly. Picture quality will rival even the best in the market.

Thanks White Shadow. I'll look into it, but with such a small viewfinder I can't see myself having fun with manual focusing lenses. For the 24mm F1.4, I find it a bit large and heavy for this small camera. I'll try and snag the older version of the Canon 24mm, which is lighter (and obviously less performant).

Bluevellet, simply talking about experience and not specs here. The OM-D is awesome for good lighting conditions and with the 12mm and 17mm it is now good inside (EP-2 and EP-3 were awful). However, I find that my low light photos are better with the new SL1 than with my OM-D. I don't use any in-camera noise correction; I prefer software noise correction. Love both systems, just trying to use the right camera for the right situation.

I have used and shot some photos with both the Canon 24mm f/1.4L MkII and a Zeiss 35mm f/2.0 ZE (quite similar in size to the 25mm f/2.0) using the Canon 100D.

I have initial thoughts that the Canon 24mm f/1.4L MkII will be too big but to my surprise, it isn't. It handles very well and of course give you superb image quality. For me, I do not like to classify what is "entry level" and what is not. I will use the best combination to my advantage.

I also have no problems with the manual focus using the Zeiss lens. Novice would normally fear manual focus but its not a problem at all with the Zeiss. The focusing ring is very well damp, precise, turns smoothly and has a long throw quite unlike cheap plastic auto focus lenses. To make it even easier, the red dot which indicate you have achieved focus will light up just like if you are using any EF auto focus lens. In fact, manual focus is a bonus if you are shooting in low light.

If you are shooting landscape, just set it to infinity or near infinity and you are done. If one is using a cheap auto focus lens, it may hunt and time will be wasted. Worse still, some cheap lenses do not have a focus scale. You practically do not know where you are. You have to try it to believe the ease of use. The worst are those used in micro 4/3 cameras.

As to high ISO photography, APS-C still has about 2 stop advantage over micro 4/3. For full frame like the Canon 5D MkIII, you will get even more. The only advantage or convenience is there is no camera shake from the mirror bounce when shooting in low light. But, one can just lock up the mirror in a DSLR to avoid that.

I was using "L" lenses before I discovered Zeiss lenses in EF mount. After trying them out, bought two initially (35mm f/2.0 and 50mm f/2.0 Macro) and I never look back. Its that good. Unfortunately, they don't make any zoom lens. So, one still have to buy the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS MkII for when one need it for catwalk model shoot.

The micro contrast is out of this world so is the clarity and neutral colour. Just impressive. I wish I had known it earlier.

Simon, I believe you misunderstood my statement. I meant that, for me, this Canon body is not a good buy because there are better and more affordable options from other brands. For example: if I wanted top notch IQ, I would buy a Pentax K-5. If I wanted the most capable video body, I would take the a57. These can be found for the same price or less and are far more appealing to me. But that is just my opinion,

I'm a total newbie, but I absolutely love this camera.... Perhaps if I were a professional photographer I'd have a different opinion. However, I feel like this camera has left me with a positive attitude toward the DSLR world. I'm really enjoying taking pictures.

Enjoy your 100D. When you are ready, try it with a prime lens like the new Canon 35mm f/2.0 MkII or the Zeiss 35mm f/2.0 ZE and you will even love it more. It might be a bit expensive to get these lenses but when you are ready to go full frame, you would just have to buy the body.

Juck is right, there are four current models. T5i replaced the almost identical T4i, but T3i is still in production. Canon usually doesn't discontinue the previous model, instead keeping it in the line-up at a lower price point.And then we have the 1100D (I forget what it's called in the US), which is still current, since the SL1/100D is not its replacement. SL1 sits above 1100D in the line-up.

Your source? Just because it's on their website doesn't mean they are "producing" them. They at one time had 6 Rebels on Canon USA's website. And I doubt you mean the T3i. They stop production of the old model when they start up with the to be announced model.

"The EOS 700D replaces the short-lived EOS 650D but the EOS 600D lives on in the overall lineup, to effectively drop down a notch to the position currently occupied by the EOS 550D / Rebel T2i, which will be discontinued."

My wife bought it with the kit zoom and the 40mm pancake.It's an excellent camera. Very simple to use, superb touch screen. There is lack of buttons so sometimes you have to find your way into the menu but hey it's an entry level camera isn't it ?The weight is sooooo light you can carry it everywhere. Lenses are ultra silent, focus fast and have great IQ.I was damn impressed really...it's a very good product by Canon !

Like others on here, I find the Gold award very strange. For that it should be close to being a world beater in its class. It isn't. Nowhere near. It's a reasonably capable camera which has one distinctive area, the weight and size of the body, which on paper gives some attractions and in practice gives some handling issues. The thing about most DSLR users is that they actually like the feel of using a DSLR; minor reductions in size and weight of the body aren't that relevant. In that respect would a 100D win out over a 600D? I don't think so. The 100D is a relatively minor addition to Canon's own range, and faces strong competition from other Canon cameras and also other cameras in the highly competitive entry-level DSLR and mirrorless market. It's OK but a Gold award just doesn't stack up.

For its target market, which I do not see as quite the same as the T5i, I think it is a Gold. For the basic photographic uses both T5i and SL1 customers will put the cameras to, I would more readily recommend the SL1. Some of the T5i's most-touted features are a disappointment, namely live view and movie autofocus. Those same features on the SL1 actually work, and well. That, in combination with the overall experience - which can't be shown on a chart - weighed heavily in my decision to gave it a Gold.

I would absolutely agree with Shawn. This camera is cute and a great walk-about camera. If one already have most of the essential lenses, the price of this camera will make this a better choice if one is thinking of getting a compact camera.

I would say GOLD for cuteness and its inherent capabilty.

However, I would wish Canon can make the "MkII" version with a weather proof magnesium alloy body with the same features as the 70D. Never mind if it will be more expensive. I just want to go trekking wth it. Make it better than the Pentax K5 MkII.

(Mostly) @ Shawn; And somewhere here reviews are strange:" Some of the T5i's most-touted features are a disappointment, namely live view and movie autofocus. Those same features on the SL1 actually work, and well." So now, when CANON have finally managed to get reasonable live-view & video AF it is worth a Gold award. I'm guessing it is for the effort! Because if those features are important, how many cameras out there still do this better than this one? Do they get the Gold ...? Has there been large shouting and complaints before in reviews that those features basically suck on previous Canon cameras? Or have that been silently accepted?There is a lot of bias in the statement above.

Simon if you based your review choices in part from what you read in the comments and forum, why do you make fun of people who tell you what they want to have reviewed? Saying "Okay we'll check with you next time we want to review something" is being unnecessarily rude to one of your customers, and it discourages the same people whose feedback you claim to be looking for from giving it in the first place.

If you've followed my posts here, then you know that I 'm a long time Canon fanboy. The biggest reason being that I absolutely enjoy using DSLR camera bodies over all other types, and IMHO, the Canon DSLRs and their system accessaries are the best of the bunch. I love their bodies, lenses, speedlights, printers, all of it. Why? Simple. I love selling my photographs, and my investment in Canon gear has always paid off. Always! Do I care if the camera shoots video, or if the current sensor is a tweak of a design first introduced three years ago, or whether the body plus lens will fit in my pants pocket? NO! Although, I'm aware that those are important issues for some folks. For me, the number one question is; can this camera help me make salable images? This Rebel SL1 certainly could, and it's completely compatible with the rest of my system. Like a carpenter's extra saw blade, this Rebel might be added to my toolbox soon.

Outside the posting rhythm of rivaling camera owners' comments, could DPreview make some reviews with iso and general performance for cameras in their first impressions or shortly after? The award status may not be included.

That said, DPreview is free to all and the resource budget must be considered. Could a partial review of more brand models attract more advertisers....hereby boosting the resource time for others?

Canon will loose money on this one for sure. It is smaller than the standard Rebel but few mm difference is not going to sway any buyer's mind. By end of the year, you will see a 50% price-drop like the EOS-M.

I will not consider this type of camera until Canon add an EVF (mirror got to go). Meanwhile, my money is going to the other brands who offer smaller size, flexibility, and better low light image quality.

I don't know. The camera hit a chord with me. That and the 18-135 STM would be a perfect vacation camera for me! I'm loaded up with cameras right now . . . but when the price is right, I might just find myself owning another Canon dSLR down the line. :)

If you put this camera next to a standard Rebel, the size difference is much greater in real life than pictures on the web, or measurements, can really convey. But heck, even the dpreview review states that "This front view shows that the EOS 100D / Rebel SL1 is substantially smaller than the co-announced EOS 700D / Rebel T5i - itself not exactly a giant." So, yes, it's "substantially smaller" than a standard Rebel. And that will definitely appeal to people who want the most compact DSLR.

Now that this camera got a Gold Award, maybe Canon will use this same sensor for another five years.

But seriously, I handled this camera at Costco the other day, and the body is really quite nice. IQ is behind it's competitors but at the entry level this may not matter since images at lower ISOs do look very good.

The problem is lenses. The lenses I'd be interested in mounting like the new Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 or the excellent EF 70-200 f/4 would balance extremely poorly. The shallow grip helps keep the SL1 small, but ultimately hurts ergonomics. In this case a standard Rebel T5i / 700D or 70D would be a significantly better choice.

Many assume (including DPR) that small size is desirable, but it only helps portability. That's it. And since the SL1 is not pocketable anyway, the sacrifice in handling is really all for naught.

Lenses that are too big for the camera is a common problem, unfortunately. I remember the first time I saw a Sony mirrorless and thought, I see the lens but where is the camera? No doubt this is one reason people take pictures with phones.

Actually I shot the 70-200mm F4L with the SL1 quite a bit, and it was fine. You tend to hold the lens more than the grip, of course. Since I almost always shoot with the lens hood, it looks a bit funny, but if I get good shots I tend not to care about other appearances.

@ Shawn Barnett: I agree with you; in my experience long or heavy lenses are supported by the left under under the lens, making "balance" and "small grip" complaints irrelevant. So why do DPReviews so often have "Cons" like:- Grip may be insufficient for use with larger lenses(Actually, I support all my interchangeable lens cameras mostly by the lens, not the body.)

@marik6: If the camera tips forward with a certain left-hand position then moving the left hand forward can fix that. This "balance" problem is just a "you're not holding it right" problem as far as I can tell. I have used a rather small and light Olympus OM-D E-M5 with the relatively massive Olympus 50-200/2.8-3.5 plus mount adaptor, and it does not tip forward once my hand is positioned suitably.

@BJL: I put that note in there knowing that despite my positive experience and general lack of trouble, not everyone will think the same. I think the small grip will be an issue for some, who may hold cameras differently,

What is the point of mounting Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 or EF 70-200 f/4 with this camera? Why not considering other appropriate (bigger camera in your view that is bigger in size and has deeper grip) camera if you like to mount those lenses?

More about gear in this article

Recently, editor Barnaby Britton had the opportunity to interview senior figures at Canon Inc. on two occasions, in Japan. The first meetings were held in late 2013 at Canon's headquarters in Tokyo, and a follow-up interview was arranged at the recent CP+ show in Yokohama. Topics covered include the future of Canon's mirrorless system, how Canon is innovating in its DSLRs and what 4K video means for photographers. Click through for the full interview.

The holidays are a great time to take pictures — and they're a great time to get a camera for yourself or for a loved one. With more than 50 cameras going through the hands of the DPReview team over the year, we've seen it all (or so we think). Based on our collective knowledge we hope this guide will help you make an informed decision on which camera will fit your needs. In this final part, we look at entry-level mirrorless cameras

The holidays are a great time to take pictures — and they're a great time to get a camera for yourself or for a loved one. With more than 50 cameras going through the hands of the DPReview team over the year, we've seen it all (or so we think). Based on our collective knowledge we hope this guide will help you make an informed decision on which camera will fit your needs. In this penultimate part, we look at consumer-level DSLRs.

We just posted our Canon EOS 100D / Rebel SL1 review. Canon's smallest SLR to date was built to take on mirrorless cameras while maintaining the optical viewfinder and compatibility with the company's existing suite of EF and EF-S lenses. We put it through its paces in a busy family environment to see how well it held up in the type of setting it's most likely to encounter. Click through for our review.

Just Posted: Canon EOS Rebel SL1/100D studio samples and good light samples. We've just got hold of a production version of Canon's miniaturized DSLR and, as part of the process of reviewing it, have shot our standard studio scene. We've also taken it out to see how it performs away from the studio lighting and have put together a series of daylight samples. Click through to see how it fares.

Latest in-depth reviews

The Leica Q2 is an impressively capable fixed-lens, full-frame camera with a 47MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and brings a host of updates to the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116) that was launched in 2015.

The Edelkrone DollyONE is an app-controlled, motorized flat surface camera dolly. The FlexTILT Head 2 is a lightweight head that extends, tilts and pans. They aren't cheap, but when combined these two products provide easy camera mounting, re-positioning and movement either for video work or time lapse photography.

Are you searching for the best image quality in the smallest package? Well, the GR III has a modern 24MP APS-C sensor paired with an incredibly sharp lens and fits into a shirt pocket. But it's not without its caveats, so read our full review to get the low-down on Ricoh's powerful new compact.

The Olympus OM-D E-M1X is the ultimate sports, action and wildlife camera for professional Micro Four Thirds users. However, it can't quite match the level of AF reliability offered by its full frame competitors.

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.

What's the best camera for shooting sports and action? Fast continuous shooting, reliable autofocus and great battery life are just three of the most important factors. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting sports and action, and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

We've updated our waterproof camera buying guide with the latest round of rugged compacts, and we've crowned a new winner as the best pick in the category: the Olympus TG-6. That is, unless you happen to find a good deal on the TG-5.

Researchers with the Samsung AI Center in Moscow and the Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology have created a system that transforms still images into talking portraits with as little as a single image.

K&R Photographics, a camera store in Crescent Springs, Kentucky, was robbed by armed men, who not only took thousands of dollars worth of camera equipment, but also injured the 70-year-old co-owner of the store.

The new Fujifilm GFX 100 boasts some impressive specifications, including 100MP, in-body stabilization and 4K video. But what's it like to shoot with? Senior Editor Barnaby Britton found out on a recent trip to Florence, Italy.

It's here! The long-awaited next-generation Fujifilm GFX has been officially launched. Click through to learn more about the camera that Fujifilm is hoping will shake up the pro photography market - the GFX100.

We've known about the Fujifilm GFX 100 since last fall, but now it's official: this 102MP medium-format monster will be available at the end of June for $10,000. In addition to its incredible resolution, the camera also has in-body IS, a hybrid AF system, 4K video and a removable EVF.

According to DJI, any drone model weighing over 250 grams will have AirSense Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) receivers installed to help drone operators know when planes and helicopters are nearby.

Chris and Jordan are kicking off a new segment in which they make feature suggestions to manufacturers for the benefit of all photographer-kind. To start things off, they take a look at the humble USB-C port and everything it could be doing for us.

The Olympus TG-5 is one of our favorite waterproof cameras, and the company today introduced the TG-6, a relatively low-key update. New features include the addition of an anti-reflective coating on the sensor, a higher-res LCD, and more underwater and macro modes.

The Leica Q2 is an impressively capable fixed-lens, full-frame camera with a 47MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and brings a host of updates to the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116) that was launched in 2015.

We've been playing around with a prototype of the new Peak Design Travel Tripod and are impressed so far: it's incredibly compact, fast to deploy and stable enough for the heaviest bodies. However, the price may turn some away.